Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking. That's just sad.
When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.
To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM. From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new. They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).
There may not be demand, because they've been replaced by newer and more efficient technologies. They are still maintained (visible in the Managed MFC port, and VB.NET for those who find it too hard to transition). I see where they are coming from in a sense, they need to innovate and sometimes that means sacraficing backwards compat.
I'm sure you could. Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.
Well Windows originally was just a DOS Window Manager, it didnt' become a full blown OS until late in the game. I'd argue that even Win9x was just a 32Bit hack ontop of DOS. Regardless, it still had some innovatons like PnP and innovations in the mere presentability of itself. Despite being lacking in the department of strictly technological niceties it was easy to use and established itself as the defacto system on Operating Systems.
Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own. I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow.
It's not hard to develop a Window Manager ontop of DOS. It's essentially why Win1.0 was not such a spectacular success they may of wished.
I think it's credible that they could of done it, it may not of been as fancy as what Apple offered but it still did what it was designed to do. Win95 was probably when they broke more away from DOS and more torwards a standalone environment (which probably began with the first uses of the NT Kernel on the desktop)
Sure, ok.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.